Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Lipkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In order to want to enter this auction with a passed partner and opponents bidding 3 suits, I am convinced that you must have opening strength and minimally 4 clubs or longer.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PB. I concur, and 1 would have been my call at the table; however I referred to it as a strong NT hand purely for descriptive purposes, not to insist on a 1NT overcall. So as to be completely clear, and not obscure my intended meaning, I believe the failure to act over 1 is SUSPICIOUS.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's see if I understand you, RF. A hypothetical hand with seven honorless spades and a 7 count should bid red, but a strong NT hand should pass. Are you engaging in constructive commentary?
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have ANOTHER question. Is anyone curious to know why W passed a strong NT rather than overcall the limited 1 opening- and found his partner holding a 1-count?
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you. As a follow-up, are suggested defenses available online anywhere?
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, I also played this particular 2 opening in conjunction with 3/ = 7 cards to 2 of the top 3 and transfer weak 2-bids of 2 and 2. The method was a net winner.

My question: Is the 2 opening currently permitted in any other events (such as teams)?
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(as also added on robbins' post): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/07/10/science.aay2400

is the technical article
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
for those with a more technical interest, here is the article: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/07/10/science.aay2400
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i liked Kerry's comment fast! (before the long arm of Eugene descends)
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, although grandfathered in: P-P-1-P-2-p-2, same thing.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To add my personal synopsis to this thread: Avon has a straightforward very consistent theme. The WBF has diligently acted to avoid controversy, not just 55 years ago, and not just 41 years ago, but even as recently as the past 5 years. As such it seems very contemporary. Also the WBF appears to have kindred souls running world football, gymnastics and the Olympics.
Now I digress a bit. When international umbrella organizations are constituted: WBF, FIFA, IOC, etc. they seem to settle very naturally into a state of personal aggrandizement, corruption, and lethargy. (Sepp Blatter: Have you been able to retrieve those Rolexes you forgot in the Zurich office?) The WBF seems well-established in this mode. It takes Donna Comptons and Boye Brogelands beating their heads into a wall to get the WBF to act. But first they are threatened or harassed.

Summarizing, this article is exemplary of a continuing failure of governance.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the hypothesis is really one positing amazing psychosis. Swimer would have to accept the captaincy to try to win for SIX players; take time out to travel to Argentina, then find a suspicious event and use it to wreak personal vengeance at the expense of the other four or five players, while exposing himself to subsequent personal attacks.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a natural question for all who doubt Reese and Schapiro were cheating. To this outsider, it seems that the apparently straightforward action of Ralph Swimer: to wit, observe the play, note the fingers, compare the hand records, forfeit the matches and send RS packing is damning. Ignoring any smoke and mirrors and motivations of American opponents, or Reese's rebuttals, what motivation other than honest horror at what he had seen would cause him to take these drastic and personally unpleasant steps?
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since we are rehashing the sharp practice of the past, I will add my favorite, personal, Sam Stayman story. I was playing against Sam and his wife Tubby in a 7-board Swiss match many years ago (sorry for a not great memory for dates, but probably mid-1980's). Sam uneventfully psyched 3 times in the first 6 boards. On the final board of the match, I opened 1NT with a singleton (not legally sanctioned in those days, except as a psyche). The opponents misdefended and Sam– called for the director!
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not have a specific agreement but obviously 5 is a grand slam try. Therefore I would bid 7 because whatever partner needs this “unexpected” source of tricks should be enough and allow him to pick the optimal grand.– Edited to add that I presume 5 must guarantee all the KCs.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only a slight excursion, since you mention drury. After kibbitzing two pro friends in February, I saw Drury messed-up at each table. Remarking on this, one of them replied: “I've declared 2 five times this year!”
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu. I would even go so far as to say there have been exactly two attempts at transparency by the wbf: Adam's outreach here and the few times Al Levy has posted here.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I truly hope this will be fruitful, if only because if a SECOND demonstrable method of cheating is uncovered the EBL can reinstate its ban and force the miscreants to head back to the CAS. This will also force the WBF to put up or shut up.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In several posts over the last few years, and recently in response to a request by Adam Wildavsky, I have reiterated the suggestion that Giannarigo Rona be dismissed from the WBF. I believe that his presence has been an impediment to the purging of cheaters both worldwide and in Italy. He has both attempted to muzzle Zia and others' trying to speak out, while comforting those unworthy of an official embrace.

Meanwhile the WBF has paralleled the rapacious and ugly behavior of FIFA and the IOC, making it hard to know if administrators are working for the game or themselves.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the too big to chew off front, perhaps, still I'd like to see Rona removed.
May 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top